RAMNIKLAL N. BHUTTA AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 19-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMNIKLAL N. BHUTTA AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 19; 1996 
A 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
8 
Land Acquisition Act. 1894-ss 4, 6, 48-Notification under section 
4 for two plots of land--Award only in respect of one Plot-Held. Unless 
denotified under section 48-The Land Acquisition officer cannot decline 
to pass award for the land notified-Under the circumstances acquisition 
can not be quashed. 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226, Grant ofStayllnjunction-
While granting stay the courts should keep larger public interest in mind-
Balance the public interest and individual interest-Lathces--Challenge 
of the acquisition after a gap of long period-Affects adversely the interest D 
of the contesting party-Proves lack of diligence. 
By a notification dated November 29, 1979 under Section 4 of 
the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the State of Maharashtra sought to 
acquire two pieces of lands CTS No. 211 and CTS No. 218 for 
constructing a bus stand for BEST. The land Acquisition Collector E 
gave an award in respect of CTS No. 211 only. The landowner filed a 
writ petition on 10.11.1986 challenging the acquisition of CTS No. 
211, interalia on the ground that as no award was made in respect of 
CTS No. 218, the acquisition ofCTS No. 211 was liable to be quashed. 
It was also challenged that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by 
malafides as the alleged public purpose mentioned in the notification F 
under section 4 is not real and is only a ruse to help the housing 
society. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The landowner 
filed the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The acquisition of CTS 211 is not liable to be quashed G 
on the ground that no award was made in respect of the other plot 
CTS No. 218. The Land Acquisition Collector rightly did not pass 
award with respect to CTS No. 218 on the basis of the private settlement 
between BEST, Housing Society and the land owner which was arrived 
at keeping in view the purpose of acquisition and interest of BEST. 
The appellant did not dispute the purpose of acquisition, neither there H 
787 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A was any material to show that the purpose stated in the notification 
was not true or real. The only grievance of the appellant was that 
since the award had deleted CTS No. 218, the land in CTS No. 211 
should also be deleted. Moreover, the appellant did not challenge the 
acquisition from 1979 to 1986. Only after the award was passed, he 
chose to challenge the acquisition. (793-C-F, 792-AB) 
B 
2. There is no adequate material on record to substantiate the 
plea of malafide on the part of the respondents. There is no material 
to hold that the acquisition notification was at the instances of the 
Housing Society, or the landowner. There is also no material to hold 
that BEST was. acting at the instance of the said persons or that there 
C was no real or genuine need for a bus station there. The change of 
user has no relevance to the plea of malafide put forward by the 
appellant. (793-H, 794-A) 
3. There is enormous lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. 
The Writ Petition of the appellant was pending since 1986 till 1995. 
D Even then, when it came for hearing, in 1995, adjournment was sought 
by the appellant only to further delay and protract the disposal of 
the petition. (794 B-C) 
4. Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while 
E exercising the power of granting stay/injunction. The power under 
Article 226 is discretionary. It should be exercised only in furtherance 
of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal 
point. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private 
interest while exercising the power under Article 226-indeed any of 
their discretionary powers. (794-H, 795-B) 
F 
5. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it 
finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-
compliance with some legal requirement that the interested persons 
shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded 
G as a lumpsom or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation 
payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and 
redressing a wrong:quashing the acquisition is not the only made of 
redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing of competing 
interests. (795-BC( 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.